Unitary Plan doesn’t go far enough

More urban sprawl and greater intensification have been recommended in a new rulebook for Auckland released today.

The city’s urban boundary will be expanded to free up 30 per cent more land for housing and many homeowners, particularly in the central isthmus, will find their homes rezoned for intensification.

These are among the big changes recommended by an independent hearings panel, for the new rulebook, formally known as the Unitary Plan.

Auckland council’s new rulebook telling people what can be built,where and what height buildings can go has been three years in the making.

The panel has come up with a proposal to provide 422,000 new dwellings over the next 30 years, 270,000 within the existing urban boundary and 152,000 in rural areas and around towns like Warkworth, Pukekohe and Kumeu.

This is a good step or even two steps in the right direction but the ratio between up and out should be around 50:50 not 2:1.

It is good they have recommended moving the boundary to free up 30% more land but as Phil Twyford has pointed out just moving the boundary encourages speculation and land banking to shift to the new boundary. Only scrapping the boundary will lead to land prices stabilising.

The intensification proposals look good to me, and I hope they get approved. It isn’t a choice of up or out – we need both.

Related Stories

Comments (32)

peterwn

The big downside now is the Unitary Plan sits alongside the existing plans until there have been submissions, cross submissions, Environment Court hearings and final sign-off. This means all proposals have to be checked against both plans with the more restrictive provision in either plan prevailing. For example is something does not need resource consent under one plan but does need it under the other, a resource consent is necessary. Even worst if a consent is necessary, the consenting process would need to address the requirements of both plans.

The Rural Urban Boundary of the Unitary Plan does not exist to restrict growth (as the current Metropolitan Urban Limit does) but to mark where infrastructure will be built to support growth – where trains may run, sewers be built, roads extended, power substations be built.

The complaint that more ought be built up and thus less planning for building out proceed, is the debate Auckland had in which those who own expensive pleasant inner city properties rejected increased building around them. Is it really anyone-elses business if Auckland decides for itself that it would rather have expensive inner city sections than apartments?

It is their council and representatives that made the call and it isn’t likely to change without imposition, and who supports that who also claims to support democratic self determination?

marquess

The low density zoning around Sandringham and Dominion Road is disappointing to see as well. They are absolutely ideal for up zoned development, if I was a landowner in those areas I’d be fighting for property rights to build houses people want on areas they actually want to live in.

Let the nimbys move to Ashburton or Levin. No risk of brown people in tall buildings there!

Marquess: The cost of new infrastructure should be met by those purchasing houses in the new areas. This can be by way of developer contribution or Labour’s suggestion of infrastructure bonds which I like. It it a red herring to suggest it needs to come from general rates.

The cost of new infrastructure is small compared to the cost of the land inflation we have. Even if you accept the figure of $17 billion, well compare that to land values increasing by say $100,000 a year in Auckland for 700,000 homes which is $70 billion a year.

Graeme

Its not just the rural boundary, its the restrictive zoning of areas. All the rural mixed zone land around whitford for example will stay as lifestyle blocks. They need to scrap more of the zones to allow free development where there is demand.

I know, I know. Auckland is important. But frankly I am bored with all the too-ing and fro-ing and this bloody zoning bullshit.
The 3.75 million NewZealanders who live outside of Auckland are becoming pissed off with the focus on Auckland. If folks want to live in Auckland they can and must pay what it costs to live there. Period.

The party that actions a solution to this (never ending circular argument) matter without endless consultation and Select Committee bullshit will be rewarded.

Prevarication? Give them the arse.

Unless JK/WE/SJ/NS et al get off their collective arse and grasp the present opportunity to legislate this year (without further consultation BS) we will still be debating a NON issue (for the vast majority of NZ’ers) in the next five or 10 years.

dubya

Marquess

Dominion Road isn’t that suited to high density development. It is incredibly narrow and ingress and egress from apartment building carparks would be a nightmare. I’m all for good quality density, but think that particular road would be a nightmare.

Finance Minister Bill English said calls by the Reserve Bank Governor for more densification in Auckland’s housing were “about as popular in parts of Auckland as Ebola” would be.

Graeme Wheeler told Parliament’s finance and expenditure select committee this week that building height restrictions and NIMBY attitudes in inner Auckland were standing in the way of an adequate supply-side response to the region’s housing shortage.

He estimated the backlog of unsatisfied demand at between 15,000 and 20,000 houses.

English, who spoke today for the 7th year in a row at the annual Auckland Chamber of Commerce and Massey University lunch in Auckland, said the city’s local government had said you can’t build up, but have now recognised that meant there has to be a build out.

There was broad agreement that the growing lack of housing affordability, particularly in Auckland, was a supply problem, he said. … read more via hyperlink above …

This is a good step or even two steps in the right direction but the ratio between up and out should be around 50:50 not 2:1.

The PAUP was for 60:40 and that 40 has just been increased by 30%, so 50:50 is a very real possibility. And 50:50 is very high sprawl, not a good idea. Massive sprawl like this is a symptom of a very sick Auckland City.

Imagine if Wellington were a super city and growing. Then Mayor Celia decided to restrict expansion of Wellington, Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt, Porirua and Paraparaumu. That restriction would make the price of land in Wellington go up.

Mayor Celia decides to take all that growth and add it to Wainuiomata, Greytown and Featherston and then double it, spending heaps more rate payers money on growth. That would be really stupid, wasteful, pointless, counterproductive use of rate payers money, but land prices in Wellington would still go up.

We, the residents of Auckland, do not have to imagine any of that. Because we are living it.

Then a government backed panel of experts comes along and backs more spending in Featherston and Warkworth.

wiseowl

Stuff Auckland and its expansion and its impact on the rest of New Zealand .

It’s time some National politician fronted up and explained whos’ agenda it is to allow mass immigration as is happening here and elsewhere in the world , who is making the decisions and why have the people of this once fine country not been asked about the destruction of our country?

The arrogance of politicians over immigration and the avoidance of discussion over the matter is dumbfounding.

peterwn

DPF and Marquess – I think the infrastructure cost issue relates to upper level infrastructure – water supply headworks, sewage plants, trunk pipes, zone substations, supertension cables, etc. Vector is quite capable of covering the latter two, but perhaps equity finance (ie partnerships) should be considered where councils consider they cannot afford to pay (blue flag to a red bull!). For ‘last mile’ infrastructure there is an element of new home owners paying twice – capital contributions and rates. IMO there should be rates rebates for lot purchaser paid infrastructure which is less than 10 – 15 years old. As for gas, I do not think councils should be able to mandate gas reticulation – developers can make a commercial decision on this – some developers consider gas a good selling point, others do not. In any case the ready availability of LPG cylinders and associated delivery service pretty well offsets the need for gas reticulation.

I would go so far as to say that overhead power lines should be allowed (as in years gone by) but the long term extra cost of underground power is probably not that significant nowadays especially with modern plastic type cables. Extra installation costs would be partially offset by lower maintenance costs.

The couple in the article moved from London and bought a house in the suburbs. Now the suburbs could be turned into apartment dwellings. So, they are devastated. Looks like they’ll have to find a smaller place to move to where no one wants to live.

dog_eat_dog

Lol I like how they jammed more people in the East but didn’t increase the density anywhere near as much around the inner city suburbs like Mt Eden/Sandringham that actually have rail and busways. This is such a blatant fuck you to East Aucklanders for questioning the high and mighty Council that they’re also being milked to support.

It’s time some National politician fronted up and explained whos’ agenda it is to allow mass immigration as is happening here and elsewhere in the world , who is making the decisions and why have the people of this once fine country not been asked about the destruction of our country?

Have you bothered to see exactly where the population growth is coming from before hitting your keyboard?

duggledog

“But the ratio between up and out should be around 50:50 not 2:1.”

Behold the Wellingtonian!

DPF, in summer time (in Mad March specifically) I hear commuters from Kumeu / Riverhead already spend 3 hours a day commuting to and from work (at least). Out of peak times it’s an hour – that’s there and back.

Now bear in mind they have hardly started those big new developments planned out there.

Here’s your problem: Our Prime Minister loses his electorate because the people who vote for him there feel a bit f***ed off that they can’t get anywhere, and also that their rural idyll has been trashed.

Something to think about.

This unitary plan is going to be a disaster. All those people are going to gridlock every inch of road long before any solutions (the CRL ha ha) are built or even signed off.

duggledog

Plus – you think Auckland City reminds you of the United Nations now? Last time I went to the city I struggled to hear a nasal twang. With all the immigration coming to fill up an already full Auckland – not to mention all the immigrant labour needed to build – you won’t be able to tell this place is actually in New Zealand anymore.

The Chinese with their 1% finance will be drooling. Please Trump win in November!

Why shouldn’t people be nimbys – if you have bought a property for the reason you want to have a bit of land where your kids don’t grow up with a vitamin D deficiency and aren’t lard arses, you pay for it. That’s why we need to go out where there are fields of dreams. It is great to have friends around without neighbours being punished because you want to celebrate something – God that is why we are lucky enough to live in God’s own. You don’t have to live in Queen Street to have a life – you need a bit of land to have a life. I can’t imagine anything more horrible than having to worry about your neighbours should your baby cry during the night. What this idealism is – it’s not natural. Why aren’t we able to buy some land from a farmer, build a house with a water tank and a septic tank and once the area is more populated get the infrastructure done then. My old boss used to say “we will find a solution” and this Unitary plan in my mind has missed the point.

Once Aussie gets back on its feet people will take off for greener pastures once again. That is life.

You must remember most of Mt Eden, Howick, Whitford, Albany, Kumeu (still) and similar areas were all farmland – then housing filled it up. People wanted to live close to the hub, move the hub and people will move. John Palino said three years ago, build satellite cities with business and housing.

England has wonderful villages whereby people can catch a train into the city or work nearby, you can have the best of both worlds.

Why do we get to decide on the ratio, again? This is simple Communism (not even by stealth). Whether I think the urban intensification to greenfield ratio should be 1:1 or 3:1 makes little difference. That is why we have these things called ‘markets’ (a wonderfully theoretical concept). If people want to live in city centres, fantastic, they can choose to pay for that. By comparison, if they want to live in small countryside towns, great. I fail to see why Auckland Council gets to decide this.

dave_c_

So if intensification is being permitted in old established suburban areas – Who pays for the upgrades required to existing infrastructure – Many infrastructure components are ancient – I can imagine the number of sewer overload issues increasing dramatically.

Oh silly me – there will be no investment in improving existing infrastructure ! Buyer beware

dave_c_

@wiseowl 5:21pm

Its simple, the reason no politician will make a stand, and do the right thing, is that they are beholden to the ruling elites.

The ruling elites (world wide) run the agenda, and if they say ‘open the borders’, the pollies all snap to attentoion and obey that directive. They’re scared shitless about having to explain the rationale – they probably dont even know the rationale

To make a stand against that is political suicide, and possibly even assassination. (a la JFK and others)